Hi Jagan, On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: > On Friday 11 December 2015 11:51 AM, Bin Meng wrote: >> >> Hi Jagan, >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 10 December 2015 at 07:00, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Rename spi_flash_validate_params to spi_flash_scan >>>>> as this code not only deals with params setup but >>>>> also configure all spi_flash attributes. >>>>> >>>>> And also moved all flash related code into >>>>> spi_flash_scan for future functionality addition. >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 145 >>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c >>>>> index a619182..0e20088 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c >>>>> @@ -130,13 +130,42 @@ bank_end: >>>>> } >>>>> #endif >>>>> >>>>> -static int spi_flash_validate_params(struct spi_slave *spi, u8 >>>>> *idcode, >>>>> +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL) >>>>> +int spi_flash_decode_fdt(const void *blob, struct spi_flash *flash) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + fdt_addr_t addr; >>>>> + fdt_size_t size; >>>>> + int node; >>>>> + >>>>> + /* If there is no node, do nothing */ >>>>> + node = fdtdec_next_compatible(blob, 0, >>>>> COMPAT_GENERIC_SPI_FLASH); >>>>> + if (node < 0) >>>>> + return 0; >>>>> + >>>>> + addr = fdtdec_get_addr_size(blob, node, "memory-map", &size); >>>>> + if (addr == FDT_ADDR_T_NONE) { >>>>> + debug("%s: Cannot decode address\n", __func__); >>>>> + return 0; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (flash->size != size) { >>>>> + debug("%s: Memory map must cover entire device\n", >>>>> __func__); >>>>> + return -1; >>>>> + } >>>>> + flash->memory_map = map_sysmem(addr, size); >>>>> + >>>>> + return 0; >>>>> +} >>>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL) */ >>>>> + >>>>> +static int spi_flash_scan(struct spi_slave *spi, u8 *idcode, >>>>> struct spi_flash *flash) >>>> >>>> >>>> nits: please align above line to the left ( >>> >>> >>> What is the reason, will it be an alignment issue. >> >> >> checkpatch.pl will report such warnings. >> >> [snip] >> > > $> ./scripts/checkpatch.pl > 0001-sf-spi_flash_validate_params-spi_flash_scan.patch > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 195 lines checked > > NOTE: Ignored message types: COMPLEX_MACRO CONSIDER_KSTRTO MINMAX > MULTISTATEMENT_MACRO_USE_DO_WHILE NETWORKING_BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE > USLEEP_RANGE > > 0001-sf-spi_flash_validate_params-spi_flash_scan.patch has no obvious style > problems and is ready for submission. >
This is because your patch did not touch the second line. checkpatch.pl only reports issues with modified lines. The alignment was correct before, because the function name is spi_flash_validate_params(). Now you have renamed it to spi_flash_scan(), the alignment is wrong. Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot